MOORE v. SAUL (2021)

[Unpublished]

Barbara Moore appeals the district court's ¹ order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Having considered Moore's arguments for reversal, we agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of district court's judgment; Commissioner's decision will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly evaluated Moore's subjective complaints and the examining physician's opinion. See id. at 771 (ALJ's credibility determination, which analyzed objective medical records and claimant's daily activities, was supported by substantial evidence); Owen v. Astrue, 551 F.3d 792, 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (factors for ALJ to consider in weighing medical opinion). We also find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, see Kamann v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 945, 951 (8th Cir. 2013) (substantial evidence, including findings on physical examinations, examiner's report, and claimant's daily activities, supported ALJ's RFC determination); and the ALJ's conclusion--based on the vocational expert's (VE) testimony--that Moore was not disabled, see Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1013 (8th Cir. 2019) (VE's testimony that individual with same limitations as claimant could perform claimant's prior work constituted substantial evidence supporting determination that claimant could perform her past relevant work).

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.